ecp_mongo_create_database

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the prefix is applied automatically and that the username must exist, both non-obvious and important behaviors. However, it does not mention side effects like what happens if the database already exists, or what is returned on success, though it does not need to be exhaustive for a tool with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The first line gives the action, and the second packs two critical behavioral facts (automatic prefixing and the existing-user prerequisite). The description is front-loaded and every word pulls its weight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple create tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers all key context: both parameters, a precondition, and a pointer to a related tool. It does not describe the result of the operation, but that is often standard for this style of tool, so the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It does: it clarifies db_name as the user-supplied base name that receives an automatic prefix, and db_username as an existing user. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation: 'Create a MongoDB database.' This specifies a generic verb and resource, but the inclusion of 'MongoDB' differentiates it from sibling database creation tools (mysql, mssql, postgres). It further adds a distinctive behavior: 'db_name gets the account's own prefix applied automatically.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly contrast with alternative database creation tools, but it does provide essential context: the db_username must already exist and references ecp_mongo_create_user for creating one. This gives clear guidance on a prerequisite step, but stops short of explicitly saying 'use this versus creating a MySQL/MSSQL/PostgreSQL database' or 'do not use if the username is not created yet'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.